Interested in hearing about a recent democratic success? Unfortunately it's not the long awaited results of the Zimbabwe national elections. Nor is it the findings of the Pennsylvanian electorate.
Rather it's the outcome of ProgressiveU's recent straw-poll-esque that is exciting. Though the participants were limited to 54 votes as of April 17th, the majority of people took a fairly radical (and I think 'beautiful') view of a national energy policy.
Here's a list of what I think these participants votes DID NOT exercise:
-the opinion that we need clean, renewable technologies to flood the marketplace
-to transition a green revolution
-socialism and utter collectivism is the sole route for clean, sensible energy generation
These were not offered as answers to the poll, although it could be extrapolated that mandating government approved changes in energy sources is what that equates to.
I find this poll interesting because it was set up very biased and rather unspecifically. I think people who looked at it were supposed to face an automatic stigma to "mandatory" and the exclusive phrase "it's the only way", both of which are designed to enable a negative response among citizens of this country.
This poll shed light on the democratic process. And I pride not only the person who elicited the question, but the spark of energy that has resulted in the following responses:
"Renewable resources are going unstudied while we are burning up valuable resources that are in limiteds supply." --Tomorrow Today
"I'm starting to think that energy, as we know it, is best not used at all, whether from coal, nuclear, dams, solar, etc, all these options fall short of having the sort of impact I think humans should be making on the environment." --Carrot (who, in my belief, extended the energy debate to call upon something vitally important to sustainability: conservation)
(The ever-logical, mvenus929)-- "Billions of people making fires is still going to create a footprint."
"I dont think there is any real debate as to whether the government should be involved in an issue like this..in fact it already is very much involved in regulation just not to the proper extent." --MirandaSturgis (Who I think drew upon an excellent point. Not only do we regulate- we already subsidize the energy industry.) "government has a responsibility not to mention innumerable economic and social incentives to intervene" with policies that promote the public good. What she said, to me in a nutshell, is what democracy is all about.
An overwhelming majority--67% (36 votes) call for a more democratic change in our energy policy. So get out yer ballots. Lets change where we get our computer's electricity and hold our representatives accountable!
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
"socialism and utter collectivism is the sole route for clean, sensible energy generation"
Can you list two 'problems' socialism has actually solved while not creating a worse mess than existed before the 'solution'?
---
"we need clean, renewable technologies to flood the marketplace"
...and those are...?
---
Consider the socialist eccological record:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&suggon=0&safe=off&q=socialist+ecologi...
http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=1909
The problem is too much government power, which is the result of socialism because it gives that power to the government, not the people. Individual freedom is inherent in capitalism, which is ecconomic freedom by definition.
You are mistaking our current corporatism for capitalism. We need to strip the government and corporations of ANY power that exceeds the power or rights of the individual.
Individuals are capable of responsibility, groups are not.
"A faith that cannot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets."
-Arthur C. Clarke
Here's a link to my response. http://progressiveu.org/124917-engaging-energy-discussion